The Right Side of the News

I'm quoting this because it may be the most sensible thing you've ever said. The forces aren't against "him", per se. They're against muddle-headedness, inarticulateness and naiveté. Those are not qualities a President should have. In some instances, his stupidiity may come across as dishonesty but his actual dishonesty is also well documented.

Those are personality flaws that you'd think a President wouldn't have, yes, but they are not in the areas of his Presidential work, just stuff his enemies keep trying to pin on him. He spends most of his time trying to keep his campaign promises and thinking about that sort of thing so he isn't tuned in enough to where the attacks are coming from. In a way he doesn't care, which I consider a positive trait, but it does leave him open to attacks when someone more tuned in might not be. No I don't think he's dishonest.

He spends most of his time posting childish comments on Twitter. He's tuned into his perceived enemies much more than he's tuned into anything useful.

You are pathetically ignorant of Christian theology and incredibly nave about your idea that you read what the Bible "actually says" which is egocentrically nave of you. You are insistent, however, and since nobody else here knows enough to answer you I have to take your nonsense as if it makes sense anyway. But I DO represent the theology of the traditional church, and you don't have a clue.

I disagree. He answers his critics, that's the point of the Twitter posts. I wasn't sure if that was a good idea for a long time but now I think it is.

And yet you are the one who consistently runs away from discussions of the Bible because it doesn't support your ridiculous theology.

You do not.You represent your own beliefs which seem to be most closely related to Lutheran, a minority 16th century, version of European Christianity.I was in Greece over Easter; Easter is a very big thing there. Greek Orthodox is actually at least orthodox.

His Twitter posts aren't "answers" to anything of substance. They're childish insults and name-calling. "Rocket Man", "Sleepy Joe", etc. are not "answers"

Sorry but I do. My frame of reference is Reformed and the Reformation itself is an important influence in my thinking. Not Lutheran, but Reformed. I don't know what you consider to be "the traditional church" but to me it's based on today's Reformed theologians. R C Sproul, John MacArthur, lots more. None of it comes from "me," it all has a basis in various Reformed theological sources.You confuse the formal Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox, with the ordinary term "orthodox" which simply means "true." The Orthodox Church is far more similar to Roman Catholicism and has nothing to do with my use of the word.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We disagree.

is a man who cheats on his wife honest or dishonest?

I know you do. But so what? Your beliefs are no more orthodox than any other claiming the name.And your usual attempt to re-define terms you don't like isn't helping.

Wow, so many lies. Sorry, the story is true. Mueller made it clear that Barr had misrepresented the report and the media had nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine the central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

---

Trump was not exonerated. Volume two contains hard evidence that Trump obstructed justice at least 10 times and would be indicted except for the DOJ opinion that the President could not be indicted while president. Wrong. The Democrats have been screaming to see the unredacted parts of the report that Barr can legally release to COngress. We're also asking that Barr and the Democrats request a judge to release the Grand Jury testimony. Whatever the judge decides the losing party will appeal and the Supreme Court will have the final say. If Barr refuses to join the request the Democrats may take further legal action. All lawful and common.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry but I do. My frame of reference is Reformed and the Reformation itself is an important influence in my thinking. Not Lutheran, but Reformed. I don't know what you consider to be "the traditional church" but to me it's based on today's Reformed theologians. R C Sproul, John MacArthur, lots more

---

Christianity is nearly 2000 years old. The Reformation is about 500 years old and Sproul was only born 80 years ago.You have an odd idea of the “traditional church”.

Your post completely refutes what Faith posted, but then more than 400 former prosecutors (at last count more than 500) weighed in about Barr's lies and Trump's lies, and yeah, Faith's lies. ”Multiple Felony Charges’: Ex-Federal Prosecutors Call Out Trump’s Conduct

quote:

---

More than 400 former federal prosecutors across Republican and Democratic administrations issued a statement Monday saying President Donald Trump would face an obstruction of justice charge were he not the sitting U.S. president.

---

quote:

---

The former prosecutors said in their statement that “these are not matters of close professional judgment.” Defenses could be raised, the letter said, and “every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice”””the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution”””runs counter to logic and our experience.”

---